The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave Christianity behind. This area contains articles sent in between January 2001 and February 2010. To view recent posts, click on the "Home" link.

As much as it pained me to watch the young man in the video that you so kindly referenced for us, I did watch it from beginning to end.

Now, here are some things I'd like you to stick in your memory-bank, for future reference:

a) This is "Ex-christian.net"...NOT "Atheists.net" In other words, your "one-size-fits-all" mentality has evidently caused you to falsely ass-ume things that are simply not true. Some of the people here are Agnostic Believers, aka, "Deists"...and as well, there are some Buddhists.

b) To "cause" something to exist is an act that must take place IN TIME; it is a temporal "act". To contemplate "creating" something is a temporal act. Thus, the little teen young man commits a logical fallacy in asserting that an "Intelligence" contemplated, and then commenced to "creating" everything, BEFORE time existed.(I'd like you to think really hard about that, because such a concept is IMPOSSIBLE)

c) Your teeny-bopper evangelist commits another fallacy when he goes on about how all the "conditions", etc., are "just right" for human life, when clearly, it hasn't always been that way, nor will it always be that way. There is much more evidence that WE adapted to the earth---NOT vice verca.

d) Even if we get frisky and grant you that some sort of disembodied flying magical "Intelligence" decided to "create" everything, your boy in the video did jack-squat to show that this "entity" is none other than the three-in-one Father/Son/spook of the Holy bible, even though it was quite obvious that he was a "Christian"......a Christian just like you.

Anonymous fundie said... look this atheists http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c------Okay fundie, I watched your god-video and have the following comments about it.

1st Video Question: "Could their have been an infinite amount of time before right now?"

The first problem here is that the author fails to define the term 'TIME'.

Here is the definition of time from http://www.dictionary.net/time1. Duration, considered independently of any system of measurement or any employment of terms which designate limited portions thereof.

Now, if one is talking about the measurement of time, relative to 'matter', then without matter around, we would have no reference point to use as a 'marker' of time passing by.i.e. We on earth today, use the earth's travel around the sun to keep track of time passing, in a linear fashion.

So without substance in our human universe of matter, we'd have no way to measure time passing, but that is NOT to say that the concept of time passing is thrown out with the now missing matter.

Think of time as similar to the number graph you most likely saw in an early math class.'Zero' would be your present moment in time and anything to the positive side on the line, would be the future, and anything on the negative side of the line would be the past. This is the typical time-line scale we often see.

We all know that numbers in BOTH directions on this scale go out to infinity.Granted, the numbers are not physical in nature and just a mere concept of our's, but then, the way we think of TIME is also a human concept.So regardless of whether matter existed or not, we can still count backwards in time toward infinity (but never reaching it). The only thing in question then, is how to measure that reverse time, and not that reverse time could ever have stopped at some point on the scale.

To sum up, even if no matter existed, time itself would have to be, because time is only a concept (like counting numbers) and not a physical entity.

The author then states that "time had to start a finite amount of time ago".Only if one defines time relative to the existence of matter, to measure it's passing.Otherwise, time going forward or backwards, would have to be as infinite as space of the universe must be.

He now asserts that matter and space itself weren't always around.

Well, if one takes away the vacuum of infinite space, then what exactly would one have left?Mind boggling concept, but I think we are forced to assume that space always existed and always will, with or without any matter to reside in it.

As far as the problem of whether matter/energy always existed goes.There are lots of theories put out there in reference to this age old question, but just because we don't 'know' the answer to this question, doesn't automatically mean we insert a god solution as the answer to the unknown.

He speaks of needing an immense amount of energy to form our universe, yet, oddly enough, matter and energy pretty much cancel each other out in our known universe; meaning there is a balance between them. So I would have to take issue with this assertion of his.

If the universe of matter we presently know about, has enough dark matter in it to cause it to one day contract, then it's quite possible we'd land up with a repeating big bang and once again a whole new universe of matter/energy.Given that space must be infinite, who knows how many other complete universes of matter might reside out there, far removed from our own known universe of matter/energy.

He then asserts that all this needed intelligence to happen.

He assumes this must be because he believes that everything was made 'just right' for life to exists. Why does he ignore the opposite, more likely possibility, in that if things hadn't turned out the way they did, life would have never formed and we wouldn't be around asking such questions about our existence.

Perhaps there is no life in other universes or wasn't in the one that may have preceded our own etc..Perhaps there are indeed other universes out there of some substance, but the life forms are anything but carbon based.Many things are possible here, is my point, so one shouldn't confine oneself to only one god-did-it possibility.

He then says "there is no way to argue this"Funny, but I think I just did that, hmmm.So I really don't think I'm "cornered" at all.

He then says 'we' don't believe in god because we "don't want to be accountable to our creator"

That would be the short-sighted conclusion of a xtian speaking, for sure.To the rest of us here, the non-existence of the xtian god had nothing to do with accountability at all, but lack of credible evidence to support such a prospect.

Conclusion:

First off, he fails to answer the obvious problem of where did this god come from.

If we say (as xtians do often), that god always existed, well that in itself puts a tangible 'being' far beyond just the problem of some infinite 'concept' of numbers and time.

Then some *THING* had to literally exists backwards throughout all time, a time that this author insist had a starting point. So if god was always around, as they say, then at what single point in 'time', did god make the decision to create all the matter in our universe?If god never changes, then how do we explain how we all came to be, when obviously god got along just fine and dandy without us, for some infinite amount of 'negative' time.

Then you have the problem of complexity.

If the universe we know is oh-sooo-complex and didn't just exists always, then we now need a super-duper all-intelligent, all-powerful 'god' to have created it all, right.So then why don't these xtians have a problem with; How did such a god happen to come about.Mind boggling stuff huh.

One last problem though, that the author also failed to address here.

Even if by some remote off-chance that he's right and there is some god out there that created THIS universe, then how do we get from that concept to the concept that it had to be the one and only Christian god that was responsible.Should we just now assume it had to be the xtian god that caused it all, versus the many others 'man' has chosen to worship, versus some creator god that doesn't give a rats-ass that we exist and never bothered to make contact with us.

Isn't it a very hard LEAP to first assume that such a required god was always around and then decided one day to form a universe just for his human pets to reside in and be awed by, but then that this god also turns out to be the one who sent his son down here in human form to be sacrificed, just to pay off some storybook type 'sin', that some very distant original parents oddly enough were guilty of doing.

So anonymous xtian who posted this link, you have a very LONG way to go to answer our questions before you can even make a dent in your case of a creator xtian god.

lol, I've not the stomach to view anymore "fundie suggested" vids, but it's encouraging to see others who will, and then proceed to give a spanking via logic such as I've seen here^^ It gets annoying that this one grain of sand in the ocean that is our universe is suitable for us, but somehow these people have the nad to say it was ALL created for us, and us alone. Vanity, thy name is religion.

Wade wrote:I never understood the reason for the flood.Couldn't God just make everyone gone? Why the flood? Was he not capable of killing everyone any other way?------Wade,I've lost count on how many times I asked that very same question.If god gave us the spark of life to being with, how difficult could it be to just snap his fingers and take away that spark.Surely an all powerful god had no need to be killing off every non-human life form on the planet, even if one could imagine he had some reason for doing-in the human life forms.

The whole concept just STINKS and I can't even begin to grasp that a god would only find a global flood solution to fix the problem of sin.

Oops, on the other hand, he really didn't solve the sin problem with his flood, now did he...LOL

ATF (who is sure the flood story was stolen from the many other flood stories of old)

im sorry boomslang and atheisttoothfairy. I realize now that ive been an idiot all along who believed whatever i was fed. im now an atheist, after u humiliated me by making such great arguments, and im also working on correctly writing full sentences. thank you for saving me from my stupidity.

I wonder what Noah thought of all the dead, bloated bodies after the waters subsided. I remember thinking about that in Sunday School as a little kid. All the dead bodies. What did Noah do about that? I asked about it, and the teacher told my parents that I was disrespectful. And I got spanked by my dad for it. So, I was physically disciplined for THINKING. Thinking is a big no-no in Christianity.

SMART MOUTHED LITTLE BRAT:"I wonder what Noah thought of all the dead, bloated bodies after the waters subsided. I remember thinking about that in Sunday School as a little kid. All the dead bodies. What did Noah do about that?"

Subject: Instant ConversionsWithout pointing a finger, let me say this about a claim for an instant conversion, from xtian to non-xtian.

1. Such a thing would be extremely rare (to say the least), no matter how good an argument had been made in such an interest.

2. If someone were however to change that quickly, then you know they didn't get there in a manner that will ensure stability of that decision. They surely would jump-ship at the very first opportunity, where a new counter argument looked a bit better.

Life changing decisions are usually well thought out and rarely made in a heartbeat.So if a certain person were to claim that one's argument against the xtian religion was so great that they instantly changed their minds, rest assured, that person is either pulling your leg, or they will buy into any new fad that happens along in a day.

That would have required a shit load of maggots. Where did they come from? And could you imagine the fly swarm in the aftermath of the maggot feast?

Really though, what would be left after a flood such as this? With the churning of the sea for 120 days, it would have torn everything up. All that would be left would be this gooey, briny stew of topsoil, bloated animal and plant bits. The stench would have been unbearable, too.

Then again bloating and stinking parts would depend on how decomposition would work under these conditions….

You know, I’ve always wanted to paint a picture called “Noah’s Ocean.” There would be no boat just an ocean of floating dead bodies. Maybe throw in couple of babies and a few dead kittens, too for a good measure...and someone, drain and souless, still alive riding on the belly of a bloated elephant...

AtheistToothFairy,Faster-than-light things are time-going-backwards things. I agree that backwards time is mind boggling to think about. Fermat often used his "method of infinite descent" (which in number theory is now called "the well-ordered set" principle [unless I'm talking through my hat, here]), in which for every countable set there is a smallest element, when he wanted to prove various propositions, such as that the square roots of most numbers are not rational numbers. We intuitively reject the time-in-reverse idea, perhaps wrongly, because it runs counter to the idea of there being a smallest element in a set, in this case the amount of time stretching into the past.

Getting back to faster-than-light things being time-going-backwards things, let's say you did some scientific experiment where you got some faster-than-light particles together to do some time-going-backwards trick (tachyons, I b'lieve they're called). Well, you'd still have set the experiment up, getting all the lab equipment and switching on the power etc., in what we think of as forward-going time. But, whatever; once you turn on the device, there you go, you've gotten some particles to do their effect-occurring-before-cause trick. So what's common to both types (directions) of time? The alignment/configuration of certain pieces of matter (the devices used in the experiment). These situations would be highly artificial because they are directed at making a small number of particles do a faster-than-light thing in a local environment. But the universe has a whole universe's worth of energy and space to work with, and for all we know, this might be its standard operating principle. Which is why maybe time does not necessarily have to have had a beginning.

Oh, my head... Tellya one thing for sure, I'm not going to be launching into 2008 at this pitch of thought/speculation.

Returning to the topic of the thread, which is Noah's Ark, a couple of points to ponder: i] if that ark could have been built in biblical times, all anyone would have to do to prove that it was possible to build in and sail it in rough weather is to build another one to the same specs today and sail the bloody thing; shouldn't be too hard with all the advances in the science of building materials and all the fancy power tools at our disposal; and, ii] Why did god bother? Noah was a descendant of Adam, wasn't he? Which means he carried that same ol' "sin nature" as everyone else. It is therefore a doomed and futile project on god's part (a known slow learner) to think that things were going to be any better a scant number of centuries after this major drown-a-thon. Wasn't thinking too straight at the time, was he?

Seo Said:"You know, I’ve always wanted to paint a picture called “Noah’s Ocean.” There would be no boat just an ocean of floating dead bodies. Maybe throw in couple of babies and a few dead kittens, too for a good measure...and someone, drain and souless, still alive riding on the belly of a bloated elephant..."

I never understand why the Christians are so proud of this Noah thing. I do not know whether any body has mentioned that this Noah thing is a proof that God failed at least once.

Let’s ask what the purpose of the Great Flood is. God wanted to erase sin from Earth. He hand-picked Noah’s family and killed all others. Why Noah’s family? God trusted them to be righteous, loyal to Him. Noah’s Ark might be a very successful engineering project. However, the fact that sin still exists in this earth (as claimed by the Christians) demonstrates very well God’s failure in the Noah project as measured against His objectives. God simply is not able to pick the right folks, even a single family out of a comparatively small world population then. Do you think that He can pick up the correct ones out of a much larger world population at the end time as expected by so many Christians?

ATF: Sorry Boom',Your post didn't show up until AFTER I posted my own, so we both seemed to have made similar points on this issue.

ATF (Who didn't mean to step on your toes there Boom)

'Not a problem. In fact, now that I think about it, perhaps if we hit 'em from both sides, the thought will actually stay trapped inside their skull-caps long enough to actually process the information...this, as opposed to going in one ear, and out the other.

BTW--and as long as I'm here....

1st Video Question: "Could their have been an infinite amount of time before right now?"

ATF: The first problem here is that the author fails to define the term 'TIME'.

Worse problem: The oxymoron is, of course, "infinite amount". So, unfortunately for our lad in the video, this actually works to disprove his intended conclusion/premise....i.e..that an Intelligent personal being of "some sort"(guess who? lol), created time, and everything else.

Again, to "think"; to "plan"; to "decide"; to "intend"; to "contemplate"---they ALL use "time"; such processes are temporal---you cannot escape it. Thus, a thinking, intelligent "being" could not have always existed before "time".

So, either there was no "creation", and the universe and time have always existed......or, a natural non-intelligent phenomenon happened, and we, and "time", are here completely arbitrarily.

Now, the hilarious part in all of this is that if the personal three-in-one deity of the bible exists, as Christians insist, then that means that he(fomerly "He") was an accident. And I probably needn't point this out---but let's remember that being here "accidentally" is of course, "pointless" and HORRIBLE! (sorry 'bout that, "Yahweh"....::sniff, sniff:: lol)

Dr Jason Long’s “101 Reasons Why Noah’s Story Doesn’t Float” at biblicalnonsense.com was very useful to me in my bible detox program. Like many good , sincere , well meaning Christians that actually finally get around to reading the Old Testament I recently began thinking “ How the F’ did I miss the pure stupidity in this book?” Surely the Holy Buy Bull. I bought it myself.It has now come down to my wanting to ask any Biblist, “ Ay, you gonna look me straight in the eye and tell me this bullshit and expect me to believe it. Get the F’ out a here.”If you love science, or if you if are newly detoxing from the insanity of the notion that the creator of the universe made the Bible his inerrant word, you will find Dr Long’s exploration of the Noah tale quite interesting. It will open your thought processes in ways you can’t imagine until you read it. http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

So many thoughts as to why this story was impossible and yet xtians believe it still.

Where are our token fundies that have claimed this story isn't just a mere fable?Why is it that all the hard topics, like this one, along with hell and heaven, leave our fundies at a loss for words, hmm.Dan the man for instance, was sure he could convince us that the flood actually had happened.

I have another thought to add on this god flood myth.Why was it necessary to flood the entire earth, right up to the tops of the tallest mountains?

Now if god wanted to kill off every land residing mammal, then this might make 'some' sense.Ah, but since when did the mammal's have anything to do with the sinful humans?The bible story doesn't say the animals taken onto the ark were sin-free, right, so obviously killing the animals was merely, as we say today, "collateral damage".

Now, how many humans in those days were living up on mountains at something like 12,000 feet and above?I would think a much shallower flood would have done the job of killing off the sinful humans and the few 'stray' humans living high up on some mountain, could be easily 'picked off' with a few well placed god-rendered lighting bolts.

If god used this method, then he could have transported Noah and his family up on a mountain, above the flood waters, instead of going through all this headache of having poor Noah build such a large 'boat' and then being stuck in that boat with all them smelly animals and their waste products.

Come to think of it, why didn't god just transport everyone and every needed animal pair etc., right up to heaven until the flood waters receded?After all, we know he has taken others to heaven before they died, right?It's not like god had to let them see all the secret things about heaven, as he could have put them in some special remote part of it for safe keeping.

Yeah I know, there are flaws in my ideas here, but hey, one flawed storybook myth is as good as another, right..haha.

Anyway, it's fun to speculate why this god did things the way the bible say's he did.

I also never heard that the wooden floors wouldn't be strong enough to hold the weight of all those animals, but that sure makes sense to.

So let's see what we have:

A HUGE boat of wood that had to float for all that time (if at all).The problems of the feeding them all, along with the waste problem, The problem of some animals only eating OTHER life forms.The problem of keeping one animal from killing another.

Oh, but there is another problem I don't think was mentioned.Exactly by what means did this god use to get all the life forms from all across the globe, to the location of the ark?What about the animals that needed to swim a huge ocean to get there.Even if they could swim, besides the endurance needed, the time factor, what the heck did they eat along the way....FISH?

When the ark finally landed and the waters receded, how did the PAIRS get back to all the isolated places they made their home.

The list of such problems just goes on almost to infinity, YET, these blinded xtians have no problem at all in buying this god myth.

Face it, if we can't convince them that such a fable couldn't be true, and the evidence is so blatant in our favor, what chance do we have to reach their non-god brain when discussing their proof that their feelings provide them for the existence of god/jesus.

We sure have our work cut out for us, don't we folks??

ATF (Who also wonders why we still have floods today, when god promised we wouldn't)

"There is no wooden floor that can hold up thousands of TONS (elephants, giraffes, lions, tigers, camels, apes, gorillas, etc......) of animal flesh.The wood floor would break and collapse. The wooden boat would break and collapse"

Not if God blessed the boat. I'm sure that God led Noah to some special wood that God had personally blessed to withstand all of the harsh weather. Remember you are relying on your limited human brain to explain the supernatural dear Sailerfraud.

After all "SUPER GOD" can do anything except intervene in man's free will.

Of course, if one tries to explain the Great Flood and Noah's Ark using a scientific approach, the whole thing does not make any sense. But what the Christians are saying is that it is well within the power of God. So it is a waste of breath to argue with them.

Just put a simple question to them: since sin still exists, didn't God fail in achieving what He wanted in his Great Flood plan?

I used to believe the Ark story. The problems can all get explained away to make "logical" sense.

I was told(and believed) that there were only one animal of each "kind". So there needn't have been two of every species. One "kind" of canine, one "kind" of cat one "kind" of bird ect...ect... Minimizing the space issue, but ignoring the post flood speciation problem it creates.

Another aspect of the space issue was minimized further by the claim that only eggs and small baby mammals and such were on the ark in a state of suspended animation. These are the kinds of mental gymnastics I was doing to believe it all.

It would have been easier to think that god had blessed the ark and turned the inside of it into a magical world where there was plenty of room for the trip for all of the critters.(as in the wardrobe in the C.S. Lewis tale)

What I see now is that the people who still believe this myth will go to great lengths to try and make it seem more plausible. Why bother? It's supposed to ba a miraculous event in the first place. Why try and make it more believeable? It doesn't make sense anyway.

Stronger now(who wonders if the ark will now be explained as a wardrobe now?)

Well yes according to my own personal revelation from god himself, it was actually the skins from each animal (no need for food or weight problems) with it's own DNA carefully cataloged and categorized and each one made to become fully whole and functioning at the end of the flood, kinda like god's full functioning wardrobe, but not like Janet Jackson's wardrobe.

On the topic of the flood being ineffectual, as sin still exists... God really screwed up that one.

As soon as the flood was over, Noah immediately started growing wine grapes and drinking to excess (who could blame him, but still, he's supposed to be a good man.) He didn't handle it well, either, he did things like cursing the son of a relative that saw him naked to an eternity of servitude that would later start wars between the descendants of his relatives... I mean, he was a drunken bastard to the core.

You'd think that an omnipotent god would have... I dunno... A tiny ounce of foresight, or something, no?